PURPOSE: Lesion volume is often used as an end point in clinical trials of oncology therapy. We sought to compare the common method of using orthogonal diameters to estimate lesion volume (the diameter method) with a computer-assisted planimetric technique (the perimeter method). METHODS: Radiologists reviewed 825 magnetic resonance imaging studies from 219 patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Each study had lesion volume independently estimated via the diameter and perimeter methods. Cystic areas were subtracted out or excluded from the outlined lesion. Inter- and intrareader variability was measured by using multiple readings on 48 cases. Where serial studies were available in noncystic cases, a mock response analysis was used. RESULTS: The perimeter method had a reduced interreader and intrareader variability compared with the diameter method (using SD of differences): intrareader, 1.76 mL v 7.38 mL (P < .001); interreader, 2.51 mL v 9.07 mL (P < .001) for perimeter and diameter results, respectively. Of the 121 noncystic cases, 23 had serial data. In six (26.1%) of those 23, a classification difference occurred when the perimeter method was used versus the diameter method. CONCLUSION: Variability of measurements was reduced with the computer-assisted perimeter method compared with the diameter method, which suggests that changes in volume can be detected more accurately with the perimeter method. The differences between these techniques seem large enough to have an impact on grading the response to therapy.
PURPOSE: Lesion volume is often used as an end point in clinical trials of oncology therapy. We sought to compare the common method of using orthogonal diameters to estimate lesion volume (the diameter method) with a computer-assisted planimetric technique (the perimeter method). METHODS: Radiologists reviewed 825 magnetic resonance imaging studies from 219 patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Each study had lesion volume independently estimated via the diameter and perimeter methods. Cystic areas were subtracted out or excluded from the outlined lesion. Inter- and intrareader variability was measured by using multiple readings on 48 cases. Where serial studies were available in noncystic cases, a mock response analysis was used. RESULTS: The perimeter method had a reduced interreader and intrareader variability compared with the diameter method (using SD of differences): intrareader, 1.76 mL v 7.38 mL (P < .001); interreader, 2.51 mL v 9.07 mL (P < .001) for perimeter and diameter results, respectively. Of the 121 noncystic cases, 23 had serial data. In six (26.1%) of those 23, a classification difference occurred when the perimeter method was used versus the diameter method. CONCLUSION: Variability of measurements was reduced with the computer-assisted perimeter method compared with the diameter method, which suggests that changes in volume can be detected more accurately with the perimeter method. The differences between these techniques seem large enough to have an impact on grading the response to therapy.
Authors: Jaishri O Blakeley; D Gareth Evans; John Adler; Derald Brackmann; Ruihong Chen; Rosalie E Ferner; C Oliver Hanemann; Gordon Harris; Susan M Huson; Abraham Jacob; Michel Kalamarides; Matthias A Karajannis; Bruce R Korf; Victor-Felix Mautner; Andrea I McClatchey; Harry Miao; Scott R Plotkin; William Slattery; Anat O Stemmer-Rachamimov; D Bradley Welling; Patrick Y Wen; Brigitte Widemann; Kim Hunter-Schaedle; Marco Giovannini Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Craig J Galbán; Stefanie Galbán; Marcian E Van Dort; Gary D Luker; Mahaveer S Bhojani; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.622
Authors: Maite Verreault; Charlotte Schmitt; Lauriane Goldwirt; Kristine Pelton; Samer Haidar; Camille Levasseur; Jeremy Guehennec; David Knoff; Marianne Labussière; Yannick Marie; Azra H Ligon; Karima Mokhtari; Khê Hoang-Xuan; Marc Sanson; Brian M Alexander; Patrick Y Wen; Jean-Yves Delattre; Keith L Ligon; Ahmed Idbaih Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tina Young Poussaint; Sridhar Vajapeyam; Kelsey I Ricci; Ashok Panigrahy; Mehmet Kocak; Larry E Kun; James M Boyett; Ian F Pollack; Maryam Fouladi Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: James S Cordova; Eduard Schreibmann; Costas G Hadjipanayis; Ying Guo; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Chad A Holder Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: John H Rossmeisl; Paulo A Garcia; Gregory B Daniel; John Daniel Bourland; Waldemar Debinski; Nikolaos Dervisis; Shawna Klahn Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 1.363